Re: Scheme function to print out active Voice context during interpretation?

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 12/15/08 1:26 PM, "Francisco Vila" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2008/12/15 Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/15/08 7:18 AM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Try not to form mental models.  Use the source instead.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, not very many of us understand the source completely, and so
>> we need mental models to work in LilyPond.  Of course, our mental models
>> will be incorrect in some detail, and we'll need to revise them from time to
>> time.
> 
> I have a question for the few developers that in some degree do
> understand the source code and are able to hack it, fix bugs,
> implement new features, etc.
> 
> Is the code properly commented, so that (thinking on the future) new
> people can learn from it without having to figure out all the time
> what does each function, file etc. do? Sure, I can look at it and say,
> but I want the opinion of skilled programmers.
> 
> If not, is there any chance of this to improve?

In my opinion, the code is written sufficiently well that if you're willing
to spend the time you can eventually get up to speed.

There are very few comments, but there are good function names, good
variable names, and good consistency.

For me, the biggest thing missing is an overall sense of the architecture.
It's alluded to in Erik Sandberg's thesis, and you can kind of get it
figured out  with the source code and the ongoing discussions.  But it's
still a bit challenging to get into starting from scratch.

As far as the prospects for improving the situation, I'd say they're not
great.  It seems to me that remedying the situation would require a major
time investment, and provide no new functionality, just improved
accessibility for an unnamed future round of developers.

If we had somebody who was interested in getting into the internals and also
interested in documenting things, then I think the situation might change.
But I have no idea who that person might be.

Carl